It isn't even snake-oil - it's dimensional sleight of hand. Basically, they are taking a reactor vessel and flattening it out so that they can use solar energy for input. And someone said "Hmmm, if we make this big enough, we can use really big words to describe it." So when they say "per acre", they mean "per X thousand reactors, which happen to fit on an acre of land".
This is to agriculture as cocaine is to chewing coca leaves - same raw materials, BIG difference in process, cost, and end product. It actually sounds like a good idea, but for the marketing deception.
"After a while no one remembers the law and no one heeds it. Eventually someone will notice and it will get repealed. These days there are openly practicing Wiccans in most western countries. Go back far enough and you will find laws prohibiting the practice of witchcraft. It was once a crime but is no longer viewed as a crime."
That's because Wicca:Religion::Kwanza:Seasonal Holiday. Nobody really takes it seriously, but recognizing it makes a minority happy.
"I'm curious to see if he keeps doing it after my son is born, and to see how the kitties react the first time they feel kicks while sitting on my lap."
If they react like my wife's cats do to a twitching foot under a blanket, stock up on Bactine.
Actually, we really don't anymore. Why? Because, since the Supreme Court confirmed that flag burning was protected speech, and therefore legal, it's value as a tool of protest has disappeared.
The main reason "protesters" in the US burned flags was that it got them attention. The more attention they got, the more flags they burned. It may not have had anything to do with their cause, but it brought cameras and police, and that's what they wanted most. But if the police won't arrest you, why bother?. I can't remember the last time I heard of someone burning a flag in protest.
It's the same reason the "God Hates Fags" Baptists show up a funerals for soldiers KIA - the connection between their cause and that event is, to be generous, tenuous - but they do it because it gets them attention. Fortunately, since EVERYONE in the US can exercise their freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, others have shown up to "counter protest". And when 200 members of the local motorcycle club ("biker gang" to the latte crowd) show up and "assemble" in a ring around the "protesters" and voice their constitutionally protected opinion of what the "protesters" should do with themselves, it's a shining example of our Constitution working without any government involvement at all.
"Note that this is not the USA. Judges in France are not elected and there is much stronger separation between the legislature and the judiciary. There is no incentive for judges to impose fines because their departments do not see the money."
While judges are elected in some local and state jurisdictions, how do you get "stronger separation from the judiciary" and the thing about the fines?
Or did you just find it an opportune time to trot out the "Everything:Europe>Everything:US" meme?
Sure - in November I voted for a "representative" to represent me, and a president who presides over how the government is run - aka, a leader. I also voted for a senator that is supposed to represent the interests of the states, but the 17th amendment pissed that away.
There's no way on earth a judge is going to hold that a statement made on a campaign is anything binding. If he were to, Obama would be utterly buried in lawsuits, as would every other president.
"Wait, Michael and Janet were actually two different people??"
I believe you are thinking LaToya.
As for Diana Ross, has anyone noticed that Michael Jackson's physical transformations began right after he was in "The Wiz" with her? Coincidence? I think not (or at least my wife doesn't - personally I couldn't give a rat's ass.)
"We need a clear, unambiguous policy that alcohol is absolutely forbidden for every state with no double standards. Only then will anyone take Prohibition seriously."
Or substitute marijuana, tobacco, fast food, etc.
Cat's out of the bag, friend. Pretending that it's possible to simply ban nuclear weapons by fiat is catastrophically naive. Deal with the world as it is, not how you would pretend it to be.
I'm not sure how you got that out of what I said. I wasn't judging Mark Felt, but rather cautioning people to remember the aphorism "consider the source". The Slashdot consensus has no problem dismissing research if the funding source is "tainted", so why should everything on Wikileaks be treated as inviolate when the sources may have an axe to grind.
Of course, if I was to judge Mark Felt by what he did, I might look at his mishandling (and conviction) regarding the Weather Underground case, and his passive participation in the destruction of J Edgar Hoover's personal files. So yeah, based on his ACTIONS, I'd say he was a prick. Being a prick doesn't mean that what he did for the country was worthless, but I don't think he qualifies for "selfless hero".
Funny you should bring that up. For years Deep Throat was held up as an example of bravery and conscience and why we needed whistleblower laws, etc. Come to find out he was a petty bureaucrat, , getting revenge for being passed over for a promotion and arguably as dirty as those he ratted out. While the results for the nation were arguably for the good (although I welcome a debate on whether Watergate has made the press a better institution), the fact that Mark Felt acted for some of the least "noble" motives should at least give a bit of pause.
Journalists who make money get it by selling their services to a news organization. Newspapers historically have made the money to pay the journalists by selling classified ads, selling space for legal notices, and selling ad space within the news articles themselves. These functions are moving away from newspapers, because newspaper circulation is dropping and advertisers are moving away. So now the newspapers don't have the money to pay the journalists. Pretty straightforward. And note that not all "journalists" make money - Jane Doe publishing what happened to her little dog when the dogcatcher came is a journalist, regardless of the fact that she didn't graduate from J-School.
Yes, the internet is killing newspapers, but it has nothing to do with linking to and summarizing news articles.
"Slashdotters really should go and read the original. What the judge recommends doing is to allow news papers to survive is to bar websites from reposting the full news story (paraphrased or not) found in the newspapers. So slashdot is safe, since it only provides a summary of the news story, and so is the internet, since only linking to news articles found in newspapers is discussed."
Bzzt. Doing what you say in your first sentence is already illegal. As for the second sentence, why do news organizations get special treatment? Their IP rights are more important than others?
Here's the dirty little secret - the "news" isn't special. Newspapers aren't being destroyed by the internet, they are going down due to poor management and the fact that newspaper's editorial/journalism sections have NEVER, EVER made a profit - they have always been subsidized by the classified, advertising, and legal notices. The fact that those are not supporting the news operations has nothing to do with posting links, etc.
Second, "newspapers" and "news organizations" have no special protection under the constitution, nor a role in the government. The PRESS does. And now, ANYBODY can be "the press", and have those same freedoms. The idea that news organizations are the "Fourth Estate" is dying, and it doesn't matter if a judge likes it or not.
If the US Government takes special measures to "protect" news organizations, they are not independent anymore, so what's the point? It only makes sense if news organizations serve some other purpose that the Government wishes to preserve. Gee, I wonder what that could be? Hint - to "save" GM the US Government GAVE the UAW a massive ownership stake in the company, and mandated they make certain types of cars, and in certain places. But, hey - Obama said they'd be "hands off" in how the new GM was run. So when the government says "We're going to subsidize/protect news organizations, but we won't interfere, what idiot is actually going to believe them?
The death of the internet, period. Since, according to the Berne Convention and US law, EVERYTHING is copyrighted at the moment of creation, the logical conclusion is that it would ban hyperlinking to anything external to a site. Now more WWW - Thanks Tim, it was fun, hope everything goes well in prison.
I don't know what to be more embarrassed about - a well respected appeals court judge who is ignorant of the law about which he comments, or the judiciary lobbying for which laws Congress should make, not the laws that they did make. It's not a very bid step to "Well, if Congress doesn't do it, then I will."
My excellent SAT results got me into an excellent college, where I proceeded to drink away so many brain cells I left college measurably dumber than when I entered. Funny how that works.
Sure about that? I got a 760 on the (old) SAT English section, got a "5" on the English AP, and I couldn't get past the first page.
I really believe that no one has EVER read the book, but since they are to embarrassed to admit it, they just make shit up. And since no one else has read it, whose to say it's not true?
4000 square miles is slightly smaller than the state of Connecticut. While it may be a fraction of a percent of the suitable land surface of the earth, I would say that is still "significant", at least in human terms.
Honest question from a skeptic: if hemp is a miracle plant with all these uses, why isn't it being grown all over the world on an industrial scale? We should be seeing cheap hemp paper imports wiping out Weyerhauser and GP, hemp fabric imports wiping out the US cotton industry, and hemp sourced fuel putting ExxonMibil out of business.
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't even snake-oil - it's dimensional sleight of hand. Basically, they are taking a reactor vessel and flattening it out so that they can use solar energy for input. And someone said "Hmmm, if we make this big enough, we can use really big words to describe it." So when they say "per acre", they mean "per X thousand reactors, which happen to fit on an acre of land".
This is to agriculture as cocaine is to chewing coca leaves - same raw materials, BIG difference in process, cost, and end product. It actually sounds like a good idea, but for the marketing deception.
Perhaps not the shuttle, but...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_Earth_to_the_Moon
That's because Wicca:Religion::Kwanza:Seasonal Holiday. Nobody really takes it seriously, but recognizing it makes a minority happy.
(I'll take my +5 Flamebait now, thank you.)
"I'm curious to see if he keeps doing it after my son is born, and to see how the kitties react the first time they feel kicks while sitting on my lap."
If they react like my wife's cats do to a twitching foot under a blanket, stock up on Bactine.
Actually, we really don't anymore. Why? Because, since the Supreme Court confirmed that flag burning was protected speech, and therefore legal, it's value as a tool of protest has disappeared.
The main reason "protesters" in the US burned flags was that it got them attention. The more attention they got, the more flags they burned. It may not have had anything to do with their cause, but it brought cameras and police, and that's what they wanted most. But if the police won't arrest you, why bother?. I can't remember the last time I heard of someone burning a flag in protest.
It's the same reason the "God Hates Fags" Baptists show up a funerals for soldiers KIA - the connection between their cause and that event is, to be generous, tenuous - but they do it because it gets them attention. Fortunately, since EVERYONE in the US can exercise their freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, others have shown up to "counter protest". And when 200 members of the local motorcycle club ("biker gang" to the latte crowd) show up and "assemble" in a ring around the "protesters" and voice their constitutionally protected opinion of what the "protesters" should do with themselves, it's a shining example of our Constitution working without any government involvement at all.
"I guess that means we can send the KKK and Nazi groups in the USA to jail then for distributing hate speech materials."
Legal citation, please.
"Note that this is not the USA. Judges in France are not elected and there is much stronger separation between the legislature and the judiciary. There is no incentive for judges to impose fines because their departments do not see the money."
While judges are elected in some local and state jurisdictions, how do you get "stronger separation from the judiciary" and the thing about the fines?
Or did you just find it an opportune time to trot out the "Everything:Europe>Everything:US" meme?
Sure - in November I voted for a "representative" to represent me, and a president who presides over how the government is run - aka, a leader. I also voted for a senator that is supposed to represent the interests of the states, but the 17th amendment pissed that away.
There's no way on earth a judge is going to hold that a statement made on a campaign is anything binding. If he were to, Obama would be utterly buried in lawsuits, as would every other president.
Whoosh...
Don't watch much Monty Python, do we?
"Wait, Michael and Janet were actually two different people??"
I believe you are thinking LaToya.
As for Diana Ross, has anyone noticed that Michael Jackson's physical transformations began right after he was in "The Wiz" with her? Coincidence? I think not (or at least my wife doesn't - personally I couldn't give a rat's ass.)
"We need a clear, unambiguous policy that alcohol is absolutely forbidden for every state with no double standards. Only then will anyone take Prohibition seriously."
Or substitute marijuana, tobacco, fast food, etc.
Cat's out of the bag, friend. Pretending that it's possible to simply ban nuclear weapons by fiat is catastrophically naive. Deal with the world as it is, not how you would pretend it to be.
I'm not sure how you got that out of what I said. I wasn't judging Mark Felt, but rather cautioning people to remember the aphorism "consider the source". The Slashdot consensus has no problem dismissing research if the funding source is "tainted", so why should everything on Wikileaks be treated as inviolate when the sources may have an axe to grind.
Of course, if I was to judge Mark Felt by what he did, I might look at his mishandling (and conviction) regarding the Weather Underground case, and his passive participation in the destruction of J Edgar Hoover's personal files. So yeah, based on his ACTIONS, I'd say he was a prick. Being a prick doesn't mean that what he did for the country was worthless, but I don't think he qualifies for "selfless hero".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Throat
Funny you should bring that up. For years Deep Throat was held up as an example of bravery and conscience and why we needed whistleblower laws, etc. Come to find out he was a petty bureaucrat, , getting revenge for being passed over for a promotion and arguably as dirty as those he ratted out. While the results for the nation were arguably for the good (although I welcome a debate on whether Watergate has made the press a better institution), the fact that Mark Felt acted for some of the least "noble" motives should at least give a bit of pause.
"How do journalists earn money?"
Journalists who make money get it by selling their services to a news organization. Newspapers historically have made the money to pay the journalists by selling classified ads, selling space for legal notices, and selling ad space within the news articles themselves. These functions are moving away from newspapers, because newspaper circulation is dropping and advertisers are moving away. So now the newspapers don't have the money to pay the journalists. Pretty straightforward. And note that not all "journalists" make money - Jane Doe publishing what happened to her little dog when the dogcatcher came is a journalist, regardless of the fact that she didn't graduate from J-School.
Yes, the internet is killing newspapers, but it has nothing to do with linking to and summarizing news articles.
"Slashdotters really should go and read the original. What the judge recommends doing is to allow news papers to survive is to bar websites from reposting the full news story (paraphrased or not) found in the newspapers. So slashdot is safe, since it only provides a summary of the news story, and so is the internet, since only linking to news articles found in newspapers is discussed."
Bzzt. Doing what you say in your first sentence is already illegal. As for the second sentence, why do news organizations get special treatment? Their IP rights are more important than others?
Here's the dirty little secret - the "news" isn't special. Newspapers aren't being destroyed by the internet, they are going down due to poor management and the fact that newspaper's editorial/journalism sections have NEVER, EVER made a profit - they have always been subsidized by the classified, advertising, and legal notices. The fact that those are not supporting the news operations has nothing to do with posting links, etc.
Second, "newspapers" and "news organizations" have no special protection under the constitution, nor a role in the government. The PRESS does. And now, ANYBODY can be "the press", and have those same freedoms. The idea that news organizations are the "Fourth Estate" is dying, and it doesn't matter if a judge likes it or not.
If the US Government takes special measures to "protect" news organizations, they are not independent anymore, so what's the point? It only makes sense if news organizations serve some other purpose that the Government wishes to preserve. Gee, I wonder what that could be? Hint - to "save" GM the US Government GAVE the UAW a massive ownership stake in the company, and mandated they make certain types of cars, and in certain places. But, hey - Obama said they'd be "hands off" in how the new GM was run. So when the government says "We're going to subsidize/protect news organizations, but we won't interfere, what idiot is actually going to believe them?
"...probably the death of Slashdot?"
The death of the internet, period. Since, according to the Berne Convention and US law, EVERYTHING is copyrighted at the moment of creation, the logical conclusion is that it would ban hyperlinking to anything external to a site. Now more WWW - Thanks Tim, it was fun, hope everything goes well in prison.
I don't know what to be more embarrassed about - a well respected appeals court judge who is ignorant of the law about which he comments, or the judiciary lobbying for which laws Congress should make, not the laws that they did make. It's not a very bid step to "Well, if Congress doesn't do it, then I will."
So, under the old boss, he leaned one way, and under the new boss he leans another.
Color me shocked.
"whose to say"
My excellent SAT results got me into an excellent college, where I proceeded to drink away so many brain cells I left college measurably dumber than when I entered. Funny how that works.
"At least Ulysses was English."
Sure about that? I got a 760 on the (old) SAT English section, got a "5" on the English AP, and I couldn't get past the first page.
I really believe that no one has EVER read the book, but since they are to embarrassed to admit it, they just make shit up. And since no one else has read it, whose to say it's not true?
Where, exactly, does Iran fit into your perfectly classified view of oil and nuclear politics?
Very informative link.
Desert solar thermal: 30-40 years
"Clean" Coal: 20-40 years
Again - why is "clean" coal a fantasy while solar and wind are practical?
4000 square miles is slightly smaller than the state of Connecticut. While it may be a fraction of a percent of the suitable land surface of the earth, I would say that is still "significant", at least in human terms.
Thanks for an answer to a question I didn't ask. Why is hemp not being grown in OTHER COUNTRIES on an industrial scale?
Honest question from a skeptic: if hemp is a miracle plant with all these uses, why isn't it being grown all over the world on an industrial scale? We should be seeing cheap hemp paper imports wiping out Weyerhauser and GP, hemp fabric imports wiping out the US cotton industry, and hemp sourced fuel putting ExxonMibil out of business.
Why have these things not happened yet?